4.6 Article

CT based three dimensional dose-volume evaluations for high-dose rate intracavitary brachytherapy for cervical cancer

期刊

BMC CANCER
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-14-447

关键词

Brachytherapy; Image-based gynecological brachytherapy; Cervical cancer; IGBT; CT-based gynecological brachytherapy

类别

资金

  1. Cancer Research and Development Fund [23-A-13]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In this study, high risk clinical target volumes (HR-CTVs) according to GEC-ESTRO guideline were contoured retrospectively based on CT images taken at the time of high-dose rate intracavitary brachytherapy (HDR-ICBT) and correlation between clinical outcome and dose of HR-CTV were analyzed. Methods: Our study population consists of 51 patients with cervical cancer (Stages IB-IVA) treated with 50 Gy external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) using central shield combined with 2-5 times of 6 Gy HDR-ICBT with or without weekly cisplatin. Dose calculation was based on Manchester system and prescribed dose of 6 Gy were delivered for point A. CT images taken at the time of each HDR-ICBT were reviewed and HR-CTVs were contoured. Doses were converted to the equivalent dose in 2 Gy (EQD(2)) by applying the linear quadratic model (alpha/beta = 10 Gy). Results: Three-year overall survival, Progression-free survival, and local control rate was 82.4%, 85.3% and 91.7%, respectively. Median cumulative dose of HR-CTV D-90 was 65.0 Gy (52.7-101.7 Gy). Median length from tandem to the most lateral edge of HR-CTV at the first ICBT was 29.2 mm (range, 18.0-51.9 mm). On univariate analysis, both LCR and PFS was significantly favorable in those patients D-90 for HR-CTV was 60 Gy or greater (p = 0.001 and 0.03, respectively). PFS was significantly favorable in those patients maximum length from tandem to edge of HR-CTV at first ICBT was shorter than 3.5 cm (p = 0.042). Conclusion: Volume-dose showed a relationship to the clinical outcome in CT based brachytherapy for cervical carcinoma.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据